Unlicensed Spectrum Bands Expected to Boost Wireless Communications Competition

RFF for multiservice wireless networks requires distributed antenna systems to boost coverage in subways, hotels, airports and the like, said Ian White, head of photonics at Cambridge U. The pricey fiber and components used in existing systems limit their value to high-value applications such as airports, he said. White is studying the extent to which RFF systems can be applied more broadly and made less costly. The key is to decide whether a low-cost fiber system can be centralized as well as extended, and when RFF becomes better than data over fiber.

BPL is “an idea whose time has come,” said Inaki Berenguer, a researcher at Cambridge U. Computer Lab. Regulators worldwide are moving to permit competition with DSL and cable, Berenguer said, noting standardization activities in several global bodies, with the IEEE seeking a standard by the end of 2006. With signal processing techniques now allow for control of radiated interference and startups developing proprietary products, BPL “will take off massively in 2010,” Berenguer predicted. But he noted challenges that must be surmounted, the largest being “impulsive noise” generated by devices being plugged into power outlets.

UWB offers several advantages, including high bandwidth, inherent security and many channels, said Jack Lang, cofounder of Artimi, which makes next-generation UWB wireless chips. But while the U.S. has approved the technology, Europe is sticking its head in the sand, he said. Unless something is done, “people will just import U.S. devices,” Lang said. Europe’s stance appears to be “primarily political,” he said; an audience member countered that UWB continues to raise serious interference issues.

All 3 technologies really could open up competition but it’s not clear how to manage their impact, said Crowcroft. A chaotic market could be bad for incumbents but good for new entrants, he said.

Several speakers suggested new ways to handle spectrum allocation. For instance, with “cognitive packet radio (CPR),” a framework analogous to the Internet’s TCP/IP protocol, frequency and spectrum are no longer relevant as measures of potential capacity but RF capacity is, said Innos Chmn. Will Stewart. He proposed defining capacity for expressing future or current allocations not simply as bandwidth but as a combination of several factors, including bandwidth, RF power and geography -- capacity elements which then could be traded.

The real issue in open spectrum is standards, said David Cleevely, chmn. of the Communications Innovation Institute. Some proponents of a spectrum commons would like a system of liberally defined property rights in which users get an amount of spectrum to use in any way that doesn’t interfere with others. But there could be a 3rd way, in which users have brief time periods in which to use particular spectrum, or perhaps longer-term leases. Absent global standards, no one can reap the benefits of economies of scale or being able to create devices that talk to each other, he said.

Internet Protocol development led almost by accident to great economic value, Cleevely said. TCP could apply equally to radio, he said, meaning allocation would occur at the network transmission layer without having to worry about the “quaint” concept of spectrum. Like TCP/IP, connectivity could be handled by service providers, with a value chain analogous to the Internet’s, he said.

Regulators aren’t the appropriate parties to control standards, said Cleevely. The correct institutional framework may not yet exist, and there may have to be an ICANN-like body created for radio, he said. A key question is how new business models actually work and whether the market will be willing to invest in them.